A Minnesota county prosecutor announced that six murder convictions were fair despite concerns about the testimony of an embattled medical examiner. The review found stylistic issues but no substantive problems that would undermine the convictions.
The review's findings impact the finality of past convictions and highlight potential issues in how medical examiner testimony is presented in court, potentially influencing future legal proceedings and the role of expert witnesses.
Ramsey County Attorney John Choi announced Tuesday that convictions in six murder cases were fair, despite concerns raised about the testimony of former Ramsey County Medical Examiner Dr. Michael McGee. The review, which cost the county $380,000, was initiated after a federal judge described McGee's testimony in one high-profile case as "unreliable, misleading and inaccurate."
Three independent medical experts were hired to examine McGee's reports and testimony. They identified some "concerning stylistic word choices" and instances where McGee's language was "overreaching or misleading," such as using legal terms like "assault" when not medically appropriate. However, the experts concluded that these criticisms did not affect the core aspects of the cases crucial to determining guilt.
In one of the seven cases reviewed, which involved a more recent plea agreement, Choi stated that the findings are being shared with the defense and the legal process will continue. For the six convictions deemed fair, Choi said there was no basis to vacate or modify them.
The review of McGee's work, spanning over three decades, was prompted by a federal judge's decision to throw out the death sentence for Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., convicted in the 2003 killing of Dru Sjodin. Judge Ralph Erickson had stated that McGee appeared to be "guessing" on the stand and offered opinions not present in his autopsy reports. Rodriguez was later resentenced to life in prison.